5016627f04
Spec repos do not have code to unit test. The gate job definition for the py27 and py35 jobs skip if there doc only changes, which is all we will ever have in the specs repo. Therefore the one "test" we had will never be run. We were using this unit test as a check for formatting issues with the rst files. This was done before doc8 was available. Now that we can use doc8, we should just switch to running that as part of the pep8 jobs. Also fixes all the errors caught by doc8 that were not caught by our unit test check. Change-Id: Ida20764edde3a07c89703d82b41958c96548b239
4.2 KiB
Differentiate thick and thin provisioning logic in scheduler
Include the URL of your launchpad blueprint:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/differentiate-thick-thin-in-scheduler
Currently in the capacity filter and weigher of the scheduler, we use the logic to evaluate whether there is enough capacity to thin provision a volume on a backend if the driver reports thin_provisioning_support to be True. However, a driver may be able to support both thin and non-thin provisioning. The logic does not check whether the user wants the volume to be provisioned as thin or not. This blueprint proposes to fix the problem by checking thick_provisioning_support in extra specs of the volume type.
Problem description
If a driver reports both thin_provisioning_support to True and thick_provisioning_support to True for a pool that can support both thin and thick luns, and the user wants to create a thick lun, the logic in the scheduler would wrongly use the logic for thin provisioning to make decisions. It would make decisions based on provisioned_capacity_gb and max_over_subscription_ratio. This could potentially lead to over provisioning.
In this spec, we are trying to address this problem by checking whether the new volume is thin or thick and then use logic accordingly to make decisions.
Use Cases
Currently a driver can report both thin_provisioning_support to True and thick_provisioning_support to True if it has a pool that can support both thin and thick. However the logic in the scheduler checks capacity for thin provisioning if the driver reports thin_provisioning_support to True even if the volume type specifies the volume to be thick. The proposed spec wants to fix this problem.
Proposed change
The spec proposes to make the following change in the logic in the capacity filter and the capacity weigher.
The volume type of the volume to be provisioned will be checked. If provisioning_type is set to thick in the extra specs of the volume type, it will use the thick provisioning logic to evaluate. Note that this only affects the logic if the driver reports both thin_provisioning_support and thick_provisioning_support to True.
Otherwise, the logic remains the same as before.
Alternatives
None.
Data model impact
None.
REST API impact
None.
Security impact
None.
Notifications impact
None.
Other end user impact
None.
Performance Impact
None.
Other deployer impact
When the admin sets up volume types, he/she needs to set the following in the extra specs for a thick volume type:
{'thick_provisioning_support': <is> True>} or
{'capabilities:thick_provisioning_support': <is> True>}Developer impact
Driver developer should be aware of this extra spec and handle it accordingly in volume creation.
Implementation
Assignee(s)
- Primary assignee:
-
<xing-yang>
- Other contributors:
-
<launchpad-id or None>
Work Items
- Modify capacity filter to check thick_provisioning_support.
- Modify capacity weigher to check thick_provisioning_support.
Dependencies
None.
Testing
Unit tests will be added for this change.
Documentation Impact
Documentation needs to be changed to include this information.
References
- A patch is proposed in Manila to solve a similar problem:
Note that capabilities reporting for thin and thick provisioning in Manila is different from that in Cinder. In Manila, a driver reports thin_provisioning = [True, False] if it supports both thin and thick; In Cinder, a driver reports thin_provisioning_support = True and thick_provisioning_support = True if it supports both thin and thick. Therefore the proposal in this spec is different from the solution in the Manila patch.